About a month ago Jason re-did that section, and I guess we lost all the names, so we had to start over. The people who are included have submitted their names in the past month. Please re-submit yourself if you wish to be included.

I have no problem with a "Fair" rating. You have to wonder, though, if these ratings sites take EVERYTHING into consideration.My website is run by me. That's it. Me.I designed it from scratch.I don't have a powerhouse like Sweeetnet backing me up. I use a small web host and my imagination.So, yea, I don't have a problem with a "Fair" rating - as long as the rating system is fair.

I have no idea whatsoever what you mean by a powerhouse like Sweeetnet backing up sites. What is that supposed to mean??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Sweeetnet is well known all over the world. Their sites get more exposure in one day than mine gets in a month. I'm not complaining. Nor am I badmouthing Sweeetnet. I am just saying that their resources far outweigh those of smaller webhosting sites such as the one I use (Homestead).

Originally posted by r_hawks:I have no problem with a "Fair" rating. You have to wonder, though, if these ratings sites take EVERYTHING into consideration.My website is run by me. That's it. Me.I designed it from scratch.I don't have a powerhouse like Sweeetnet backing me up. I use a small web host and my imagination.So, yea, I don't have a problem with a "Fair" rating - as long as the rating system is fair.

My rating system isn't fair to webmasters. It's fair to people who are trying to find my site. I go by what they'd think is better. So, no, I don't take into consideration effort, number of webmasters, time spent, host, or anything like that. Just content and design.

I have no problem with a "Fair" rating. You have to wonder, though, if these ratings sites take EVERYTHING into consideration.My website is run by me. That's it. Me.I designed it from scratch.I don't have a powerhouse like Sweeetnet backing me up. I use a small web host and my imagination.So, yeah, I don't have a problem with a "Fair" rating - as long as the rating system is fair.

I totally agree. My site fits all the points in that little list, but I'm still happy with my rating, and I realise that it's me who's responsible for my site being ranked "fair", because PR obviously think that I could be better, and I'm fine with that, it just means more work for me..

I think the PR should have a "Nice" and "Fair" category. Because I was browsing along and sites with barely any content just pictures of Futurama merchindise were in the same catergory as some very nice sites like Much Ado about Futurama and Futurama Uncovered. So I think another level of critisism should be installed, since the 'Fair' group as of now is soooo big and the sites listed are very differant in quality.... or maybe it is just me.

I was thinking about that a while ago. I decided against it because it would make too many categories and not enough in the new categories. but now with that category rising, I just might. Maybe the next time I go through all the sites...

Legal Notice & Disclaimer: "Futurama" TM and copyright FOX, its related entities and the Curiosity Company. All rights reserved. Any reproduction, duplication or distribution of these materials in any form is expressly prohibited. As a fan site, this Futurama forum, its operators, and any content on the site relating to "Futurama" are not explicitely authorized by Fox or the Curiosity Company.